I thought by quoting them directly in my response it would be obvious those were the questions I was referring to in my last post title.
In your list of impact times you should probably also include the FAA time from their summary: 8:46:35.
(see post #17)You have again misrepresented how NIST arrived at their impact time. As you can see from table H-3, the time determined for the first impact in their relative timeline is different than the one calculated from the original seismic data.
For a more detailed explanation of the NIST times, including additional information concerning the recent seismic data analysis
(e.g. the margin of error, etc.), you can read their report at the link provided in
post #27. I'm surprised that you still haven't read at least that portion of the NIST report. If you took a few minutes to read the sections about the impact times, perhaps you would not continue to make errors when posting about them.
mhatrw wrote:
Which of these four estimates would you judge most accurate?
"A simpler explanation
[for the discrepancies] is that the NIST impact times based on video evidence are correct; that calculating the time of these seismic events, given the circumstances, is sufficiently complex that it may be unreasonable to expect them to be any closer than within a few seconds of the actual impact time; and that the impact times based on the radar data are off by a small margin, possibly due to incomplete data and/or clock sync issues."
(from post #25)mhatrw wrote:
In order to answer this question, we need to know:
1) What is Kim's explanation for the second, unpublished seismic estimate falling outside of the published MOE of the first, published seismic estimate?
Perhaps you are going about the seismic data issue the wrong way. Since it seems you have been unsuccessful in obtaining additional information regarding the paper Dr. Kim did for the Building and Fire Research Laboratory, perhaps you can simply prove that the first published seismic estimate was correct. That would discount the more recently calculated seismic impact times.
mhatrw wrote:
In order to answer this question, we need to know:
2) Exactly how many live video broadcast sources exist for the WTC-2 tower's impact that included a timestamp "bug" and what did these each of timestamps say at the moment of impact? The fact that the NIST examined four examples of live video to arrive at their estimate is meaningless without information about which of these live video feeds included timestamps, what each of these timestamps showed, and whether any other live video evidence showing timestamps were excluded from this analysis.
The best course of action might be to contact NIST
(wtc@nist.gov) to see if they have a more detailed explanation to offer than that in their final report. I would just add that the broadcasts of the local New York stations which were the original sources for the live feeds would seem to confirm the time reported by NIST.
mhatrw wrote:
In order to answer this question, we need to know:
3) Exactly what evidence did the 9/11 Commission use to arrive at their published impact estimate?
I'm glad you brought this up, I thought you might have been avoiding the issue when you didn't address it in your response to my first post in this thread.
(see post #17)I would like to direct your attention to the following quotes from the opening post:
mhatrw wrote:
The 9/11 Commission, using NYC airspace air traffic control radar, NTSB analysis, and infrared satellite data which are (and which must be) typically precise to the second...
-snip-The air traffic control radar, NTSB analysis, and infrared satellite data that the 9/11 Commission analyzed led the 9/11 Commission to conclude that the impact of WTC-1 happened at 8:46:40 and the accuracy of this data was of comprehensive and persuasive enough to the Commission that they both ignored the seismic evidence discrepancy
and listed no margin of error whatsoever.
So you believe the 9/11 Commission analysis of "faked" data was "
precise to the second", yet you don't know exactly what evidence they used to arrive at their impact times.
(Of course, the NIST "estimate is meaningless" without more comprehensive information on how they arrived at their impact times. Interesting...)This brings to mind a few questions:
- Did the timestamps from the radar data used by the 9/11 Commission precisely record the correct current time?
- Did they extrapolate any of their information because the last radar return(s) were still some distance from the WTC?
- Was the radar data used from a single site? Or was the data from more than one location compared to determine the impact time(s)?
- Why are the second impact times based on radar data reported by the NTSB, the FAA, and the 9/11 Commission all different if the data is "typically precise to the second"?
- Is there a reason that you claimed their WTC impact times were in part based on infrared satellite data when it does not say that in their own report?
- Make7